


Wonder Woman Then and Now - On Safe Choices

by yourlibrarian



Series: Reviews [19]
Category: Wonder Woman (2017), Wonder Woman - All Media Types
Genre: Gen, Meta, Reviews
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2017-06-20
Updated: 2017-06-20
Packaged: 2018-11-16 15:27:26
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 3
Words: 7,061
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/11255745
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/yourlibrarian/pseuds/yourlibrarian
Summary: Having read Joss Whedon's leaked 2007 script for a Wonder Woman movie the day before seeing the movie, there were some rather interesting choices made in both films.  The released film clearly has a lot more hands at work and plans for both the commercial and international viability of the film.





	1. The Movie That Wasn't

I read Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman script as I wanted to see where he'd taken it before I went to see the movie. I thought it was a mixed bag.

One thing I had to keep in mind is that a movie script is neither a book, nor is it a completed film. For movies especially, scripts tend to be starting points not a blueprint for the film. Even reading a script for something already made makes a difference as I've noticed when, say, looking at Buffy scripts I tend to bring not only the actors but particular line readings to mind.

So the fact that I didn't find it particularly captivating a read doesn't mean it couldn't have been a lot more captivating on film. But I did find the plot rather pedestrian and an uninvolving read. Most curiously, I found everyone except Diana herself rather underdeveloped as a character which is a surprise given how well characterized most Whedon casts tend to be. There are also a number of reasons as to why this script got nixed by the studio.

### Overall Problems

I'm guessing that among the problems the studio had with the script was a lack of any real love story between Steve and Diana. There is an immediate attraction but no clear reason why they're interested in one another. They're established as rather different people and while they do acknowledge that attraction by the end, a romance it is not. And while normally there's a love interest storyline in any superhero movie, I'm guessing the studio wanted a particularly strong one for WW because -- given the way they see the female market -- they expected this to be a primary draw for women.

But it's not just Steve that Diana doesn't seem to have a strong connection with. I never get any clear reason from the other 3 characters of why they're working with Diana either. Granted she does them a big favor soon after they first meet (although they do some for her as well), but she has so little interaction with them that my feeling was we should simply take it on faith that they'd become her posse because they believed in her. Or maybe were just very curious.

Similarly the villains don't get much development either, though clearly that has not held back many a superhero film from being made. The problem, I suspect, is that the studio didn't care much for Joss' personal philosophy re: said villains and the script's vocally dim outlook on humanity. What's funny is that this was written 10 years ago yet his political perspective could have been drawn from recent tweets. So it was even grimmer a film then than I think it would be seen as now (especially given the generally grim tone of WB superhero films as of late).

In fact, I'd say that curiously Whedon's film is quite current in that sense (it is set in present day after all, unlike the completed film). The whole attachment to war and strife given lip service in the script seems quite true in this period of right wing resurgence and its commitment to violence, self-interest, and exclusion.

There are definitely moments of humor, largely from Steve Trevor, though on the whole the script lacked the humor I expected to find in it. I had the feeling this part was written with Nathan Fillion in mind, although he didn't play Steve in the Wonder Woman animated movie until a few years later (something I want to return to later). But there were bits in the script, such as the comment about how Steve doesn't like people, as well as his sense of humor, and the fact that he's a disillusioned former soldier, that made me think of Captain Mal. There were at least two moments where I laughed out loud while reading (and hey, product placement for Arby's so early on?) But in general the lines would probably have played out better visually than they did in text.

Whether or not one considers it a strength or a weakness is probably a matter of personal taste, but a good deal of the screen time would have been spent seeing WW fight. This is, again, something I want to return to.

One thing the script could have used a lot more of was the whole "stranger in a strange land" aspect. There should have been loads of things that Diana found stranger than appeared in the script. There are a few half-hearted (and really clumsy) lines devoted to the fact that she's never seen a man before and that they have never been among the Amazons. But if you're transferred from such an existence to one dominated by that other sex you know nothing of -- there are a lot of things that are going to leap out at you. These could also be quite funny or even pointed, making for great commentary without taking much screen time, and I don't feel Joss delved into that. He's also probably not a particularly good choice for such insights, but it's also possible he wanted to do more that he wasn't allowed to by early notes. (I'm thinking, for example, of his experience with Dollhouse, which, like Dr. Horrible, followed the creation of this script and may have reflected some of the things he wanted to explore here but couldn't).

Joss is also not known for his deft hand with diverse characters or situations. I'd say this script walks a line in that respect and is particularly clumsy with the lesbian overtones. Though, again, there is so little development to most characters that really no one gets any kind of rounded presentation. I would have removed the surfer guy entirely from her posse, for example, as I saw no reason for his presence. Instead, any lines or actions could have been assigned to someone else to give them more to do.

### Strengths

I did find Whedon's depiction of Diana to be interesting. In fact, I will go so far as to say I can't recall any heroine to be depicted on film in quite the same way. There were some bits which I felt were kind of derivative of either the hero's journey or Buffy's own evolution. But Diana as a character was definitely different. And I suspect her relative unapproachability and particular weaknesses were considered to be off-putting by the studio. I actually found it very appealing.

I am, for example, beyond done with the "competent professional women whose personal lives are a disaster" trope as a way of making women "relatable." She's a superhero, I don't see any need for her to be personally relatable. I have nearly nothing in common with Tony Stark but that doesn't make me uninterested in watching him.

Of course, Diana is also not particularly humorous. She does get her moments with a few good lines, but on the whole, she is not entertaining to watch other than in battle. Most of the humor gets shunted to Steve whose bitter approach is not what you'd call comic relief. But then, Captain America is also a character known for being morally centered, unfunny, and in the Marvel verse, initially a fish out of water and personally isolated. Yet while Diana shares some of these traits with him, she is literally from another world. While Steve is decades out of date, he can still understand the rhythms of human existence and how much has not changed since his time. People are much the same everywhere -- except on Paradise Island.

### Limitations

Ultimately I think what left me feeling flat about the script is that while there are many fight scenes where you are likely to be cheering Diana on, the script does not, in the end, leave you feeling very uplifted. And I think that's something it should do -- it should definitely leave you wanting more. Instead, I kind of wanted more of Diana but in an entirely different storyline.

What the script also left me feeling is that while Joss is known as a really good writer, he may actually be much better as a script doctor, a role he has in fact performed at many times including the current Justice League film. I was left reminded of how often one of his show writers mentioned that particular decisions, scenes, or lines had been all Joss, and of how often he rewrote scripts (including a number of uncredited episodes).

For example, I still see his Avengers film as a really good movie, and one in which he was constrained by a number of earlier decisions and later needs. He had a number of major characters to bring together and yet he did so really well, giving them all a chance to interact and to have their moments, as well as establishing them as real people having a hard time mobilizing together. There are some giant plot holes in it (which, given how fanoned they have been in Loki/Tony fandom as deliberate evidence about Loki's plans, I almost forget were major contrivances). This is a definite failing of his as can be clearly seen in Buffy's finale, among other stories.

But perhaps exactly because he was so constrained -- by having to write specific scenes, be consistent with characters already introduced, and deal with major stars and actors with long-running deals who were going to have clout in determining certain things -- the movie could not, in fact, reflect his personal tropes the way this script does. Instead, it got some of the best of him -- his humor, his understanding of character motivations and person-centered writing, and the occasional clever twists. He also excels at ensemble writing which, again, was something I expected to find in this script and in no way did.

I would argue that Ultron suffered in some ways for him attempting to take more control over the storyline. It's certainly a darker, less enjoyable story, and his handling of the Bruce/Natasha relationship was notably clumsy. The fact that he felt the whole farmhouse interlude was the important thing to fight for as opposed to the character issues raised in Scarlet Witch's hallucinations struck me as a definite case of personal philosophy trumping story development. It did set up Hawkeye's retirement well but that's about it. And the movie suffered from not enough ensemble-centered development (though, in fairness, there was even more character sprawl to contain).

I'll be curious to see what happens with Batgirl which could very well be a WW redux since, so far as I know, he is tackling it from the start as he did with this script, as opposed to ditching or rewriting someone else's stories as he's done with the other superhero films.


	2. The Movie We Got

The short version is that I liked the film, and I'd like to see it again sometime. But I didn't think it was either a great film I was enthusiastic about nor was it one that bored me. I also found that having read Whedon's script first may have made it more interesting.

Part of that interest lay in seeing what was kept and what was jettisoned from his script, as well as where time was spent in the movie and on who.

So, in Whedon's script the first character we connect to is Steve. Diana is revealed soon after but her backstory is never delved into in depth. In the movie it is Diana who starts out as a narrator and we briefly see her in present day (and not in the U.S.) before flashing back.

We also see Diana as a child, and establish her relationship with others on Paradise Island. We get a backstory of the Amazons which is relevant throughout the film. Unlike in Whedon's script, we do not see her with peers, although this is so brief in his script it is more hinted than really shown. Instead her relationships are entirely parental. She has people who keep watch on her, we see her mother relating her origin story, and her aunt and mother act like father and mother figures with the traditional push-pull of learning to leave home and staying protected within the family.

One way in which this parental focus makes a difference in the film is because the tiara is given a backstory and thus also a counterpart to Steve's object of significance in the movie.

Joss also has Diana fighting a great deal in his script whereas in the movie we see a lot less of it. Instead there are some major set pieces where it happens. We do see her training from early on and get a hint of a major defensive asset to come. But in the first big fight scene she is barely present. I really liked this decision. For one thing, that first fight scene was one of my favorite things about the movie. Second, I think it makes sense that Diana, who had never been in battle before and was rapidly overwhelmed by a number of novel things happening, hung back.

I thought it was interesting that Steve Trevor continued to be American in this movie. Really, that didn't seem important and it would have made more sense for him to be British. (Also, given that so many parts these days of American characters and creations are played by Brits it actually stood out to me that this one wasn't).

Regardless, it is WWI and that setting is crucially important throughout the film. To me, one of the most important factors is that mass communication was still in its infancy. It would be rather easy to hide any number of things in those days. Also, women were as rare a presence in many settings as men would have been had they existed in Paradise Island. But it was also important because WWI was a war vastly wasteful of lives, with the introduction of numerous new developments that increased the body count but to no real effect once the war ended.

Given how much I disliked the frat-boy Kirk performance that Pine delivered in Star Trek, I was not thrilled to hear of his casting as Trevor, since it seemed to me his casting was at least as important as Diana's, assuming he was going to be a central character. Joss very clearly gave us Steve's view of Diana in his script: we saw her through him for the first half of the film. But eventually Steve followed Diana's mission and she became central in the story. That didn't happen as much in the Jenkins movie.

I think that Steve both was and wasn't the audience stand-in in this film. His portrayal seemed fairly out of step for a guy in the early 20th century -- it was too modern in many ways. Yet while his job had been fairly simplified for the sake of the audience, it would still be pretty unusual today. Steve is not a nobody -- he's pretty high ranking, or at least has unusual access to decision makers (especially, I'd say, for a Yank). Plus, his own secretary? Not an everyman.

So I think Pine has to get big props for this role because it was key to making this film work and I think he did quite a good job with it. He had an earnestness born of desperation with a touch of self-loathing, rather than some strict moral compass or a belief in systems. He had a humility to him that seemed more the result of having cockiness knocked out of him than because it came naturally. And I thought the relationship he had with Diana was born very much out of circumstance. He was the first man she'd known, who she had to rely on to be her guide. He was a soldier in a long war who knew death could be around every corner and opportunities were not to be wasted. To him Diana was a weapon, a responsibility, and an obligation he had agreed to. Yet they maintained until nearly the end, very different objectives.

That Diana and Steve bonded in a realistic way was different to me than Whedon's script. Even though I think the "love story" was not a big part of the movie, it did exist and was handled better. Whedon's take was more of a will they/won't they for no clear reason either way. In the Jenkins movie Steve really mattered.

One aside: When Sameer, on seeing a demonstration of Diana's strength, says "I'm both afraid and aroused" (or words to that effect), it seemed entirely anachronistic to me and very pro forma. I would have cut it or replaced it with either a more likely response or a good joke. It does, however, bring up a bigger problem for me, which is that Diana's abilities did not seem to alarm anyone. I mean, frankly, it has always seemed a bit odd to me that outside of, say, X-Men films, crowds and individuals seem to admire superheroes rather than being wary or weirded out by them. And by that I mean people who are more than simply very good hand-to-hand fighters. Today I think we might be surprised to see a random demonstration of someone's martial arts skills and perhaps be admiring. (And we've seen enough women in combat that only someone divorced from reality would find it amazing in any way). But someone smashing a building or landing from 50 stories up would be damned alarming.

But back 100 years ago if a woman demonstrated almost any part of Diana's skills, I don't think people would have been particularly receptive. We live in a world where a majority of white women in the U.S. either didn't vote or voted for Trump. The idea that Diana would have resonated with the majority of people of either sex at the time is ludicrous. It's not at all unusual for good deeds to be punished and if the person performing the deeds were literally superhuman? I think people would be, at best, glad to see the back of that person if not pulling out the pitchforks. There was also an incident of, to me, absurd destruction given the objective, enough so that I think people would have been outraged about it, not grateful for it. (I'm assuming the church was used as a metaphor, one of the only allusions to religion in the film.)

So this was one area in which I think Whedon's script was far more on point, in suggesting that reaction to Diana would not have been entirely or even largely favorable. Indeed, Diana's very ability to focus on her own concerns was a serious privilege completely out of step with the world. And this viewpoint, I would add, was from a script about a modern audience, which could be considered more jaded about unusual people and behavior than those of 100 years ago. By comparison, the movie tries hard to humanize Diana with sweet moments, a reserved friendliness, and a lack of any kind of societal challenge other than expressing humanistic concerns about loss of life or people's well being.

It did not surprise me that Steve had his own storyline and, in some ways, took over the latter half of the film. I strongly suspected that Steve being largely a sideline in Whedon's script was one of the things that sank it in the studio's eyes. Even though women still remain accessories in films, or have clearly secondary or minor roles, it seemed very unlikely a man would be given such a part. In fairness, one similar superhero movie of an alien and a human love interest did do the same for women. Jane Foster's story remains important in Thor and even central in Thor 2. But that remains the exception.

A good way of looking at that is to ask if the finished film could easily be turned around to make it about the other character. (That's why I think it's particularly true about Thor 2 -- it could easily be reframed to be mainly about an astrophysicist's journey into other worlds as a way of re-inspiring her about work that's hit a dead end) . So the WW movie could just as easily have been about Steve -- most of the movie is about his world, about the people he knows, about his mission. Not only that, but a good deal of the film looks AT Diana rather than through her eyes. Just as I felt it was missing in Whedon's script, there is a distinct lack of cultural shock on her part even though _everything_ would have been novel to her. If I were suddenly thrust into WWI Europe, I would have felt pretty disoriented despite having a passing familiarity with the history and regions and what makes up day to day human life. Diana should have been in a state of shock most of the time, really.

I would also have had a lot of stumbles communicating -- language is about more than just words. I say this because in Whedon's script, set in the present day, despite being isolated the Amazons have some concept of what's going on in the outside world, and they have advanced technology. This is clearly not the case in the film -- which is why Diana's ability to speak modern languages seemed absurd. One need only consider the generational changes in one's own language to realize how important currency would be. Don't even get me started on money and the transactional foundation of a non-contained world.

But ok, bypassing what would have been an entirely different film of an alien visiting a new world, the fact that Diana simply accepts most things thrown her way with only small adjustments, makes it clear that we are not seeing things from her POV and that the writing is never about that.

The villains in this movie were boring to me. They were stock characters and I found nothing of interest there. We never know, for example, why Doctor Poison joined the war effort. Was she committed to the cause, committed to science, or simply a lover of destruction? This was also true in the Whedon script, although I think the underlying philosophy was more deeply explored. The Jenkins movie did little philosophizing by comparison because its setting is already clear to everyone and the script reduced Diana's mission to a bullet point.

The side characters were also sketched very broadly as largely one-note people. While I felt that at least the parental figures in Diana's life on Paradise Island were given clear motivations and we got a sense of them as people, all Steve's sidekicks were basically given a few lines of development and that was it. They could have been entirely different characters for all that it mattered to the story (and one or more of them could have been removed with no loss). I did like Etta and the way she rolled with things. It would have been fun to have more time with her. But that's probably more because I enjoyed her comedic contributions than I did those of Steve's team, who I found unfunny.

The overall plot of the film was fine. I liked that Steve and Diana had somewhat competing missions because it gave both of them more agency, which also created more tension. However the writing was fairly predictable. There were at least four moments in the movie where my companion and I told each other what was coming up in the next few moments, just because one could guess as much. So what appeared to be planned plot "twists" didn't really twist for either of us.

I also found the very last fight dull because it was so overdone and I didn't feel there was a real challenge there. Instead it just seemed to drag on. But the moment when Diana finally reveals the Wonder Woman costume and makes her first real appearance as the superhero in No Man's Land was pretty nifty (although I've got to say, all those ricocheting bullets should have been as much a danger to both sides). And that's one of the things that it's hard to have come across in a script -- to see the actual fight scene and picture how it's going to be staged and filmed. It carries an interest and emotion in visual form that it just doesn't on the page.

Now that I've written my thoughts there are a few reviews that I thought took issue with the film entirely apart from anything Whedon wrote. The conclusion of the New Yorker's review, for example, was something worth noting:

"The new “Wonder Woman” is set in an extravagantly staged and costumed 1918, driven by an uninteresting plot about the Kaiser and chemical weapons; the film renders invisible—erases— the fights women waged a century ago for representation, contraception, and equality. The real women who fought them called themselves Amazons, figures from myth, because, not knowing much about the history of women, they had to imagine ancestors. Wonder Woman is their daughter. They made her out of clay. She owes them a debt that this movie does not pay."


	3. For Whom Was She Made?

There are certainly any number of criticisms that can be leveled at both Whedon's script and Jenkins' film. The difference is that the film is a finished product with many hands at work, some clear and some whose contributions are unknown. While Whedon's script may also have had various notes and conversations from his employers worked into its scenes, we don't know what they were or how much further the story would have changed (and why) had it ever been put into production. For example, Jenkins has already circulated the story of how she had to fight for the No Man's Land reveal sequence which many viewers have found the best or most moving part of her film. 

What can be certain is that the final film was a series of very safe choices, made to reduce controversy and improve the film's chances of success internationally. And it is the overwhelming shaping of the film based on potential audience reaction that stands out the most to me. Given the controversies over the Ghostbusters reboot and the long-delayed road for this superhero's film, plus the very real possibility that Warner Bros never believed in its success (evidenced by its director's 1 movie contract and the star's 3 movie deal, which has already been fulfilled), there is reason to think that every part of the movie was analyzed for potential success or failure in alienating audiences. The movie is a very different product than one person's vision, and there are quite a few hands credited for the final result since Jenkins was not a writer/director the way Whedon was in Avengers.

Whedon's script, by comparison, may very well have been his first full draft reflecting what he wanted to do with the movie, and having very little to do with how it was going to "play" either domestically or in other parts of the world. Whedon's original screenplay for Buffy had been substantially changed in the making of it. The two movies where he had control over the product were Serenity, a sequel to his own material, and Cabin in the Woods, a joint project with Drew Goddard. Both of them had been made for the same studio head and neither involved a highly recognizable existing property, meaning that there had been little reason for extensive tampering short of budgetary constraints. Serenity was a commercial failure and was difficult to evaluate separate from the TV series it came out of. Cabin received a very divided reception among horror fans. 

It is Cabin which is the best example of what someone reminded me is a consistent theme in Whedon's writing, and which has often been a strength. He loves to be meta-textual, whether this is done through literally analyzing a genre, as in Cabin, or in subverting tropes, which often led to surprising turns or funny moments in his scripts. He is also a satirical writer though I didn't see much in the way of satire in the WW script. Whedon is also a writer of comics, and a longtime reader of them.

And it is for that medium that his script most makes sense, as if this was a comics run and not a big budget film.

### Interpretations of Diana

For example, the frequent battle scenes in the script could be seen as a demand to keep moviegoers in their seats, but it is also important for a print visual medium. The fact that he wrote Steve as if it were for Nathan Fillion, and later Fillion did in fact voice another Steve Trevor for the 2009 animated film suggests that not everything Whedon planned was abandoned. The 2009 project incorporates quite a few of the same elements that Jenkins' movie does not. For example [in this review](http://www.tor.com/2017/06/01/of-bloodless-beheadings-and-lifeless-voice-work-the-animated-wonder-woman/) of that movie was the following observation:

_"And the whole movie’s worth it for the scene in the park. Diana sees a little girl crying near some boys playing with swords. The girl reveals that the boys won’t let her play pirate with them because she can’t wield a sword. Diana tartly points out that the boys can’t, either, and then gives the girl some tips using a stick. With Diana’s urging to “Go, raise hell,” the girl immediately runs in and starts waving the stick around, scaring the crap out of the boys. (It also leads to another of Fillion’s funny lines, to wit, “That is sweet—teaching her to disembowel her playmates like that.”)"_

I was instantly reminded of one of my favorite bits in the Whedon script:

_"A cute little girl of 10 stands nearby at the bottom of a gnarled tree. She calls out "Lady?" (points up) "My cat is stuck in that tree."_

_Diana looks up, sees the cat stuck on a branch, looks back at the girl with dismissive incomprehension._

_"Climb it."_

I think that speaks very well to what Whedon was trying to do. He notes that the girl is 10, not a very small child, and the tree is gnarled, not some tall straight thing that would be unusually difficult to climb. Diana can't understand why this girl wouldn't solve her own problem, because she's never lived in a society where women are raised to be dependent on others. (I'd add that this is also a very different reaction than the one in the 1978 Superman where he, predictably, [rescues the kitten from a tree](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/superman-man-of-steel_b_3429702.html). ) Diana's response reminds me of a something [I saw published](http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40266804) regarding the effect of the movie on kids. About a little girl of around 6:

"Just last night she said out of the blue, ‘I thought girls were always weak, but actually we’re strong plus lots of other things, even trouble-makers in a good way.'”"

Who would have taught her girls were weak? No one on Themyscira, that's for sure. A warrior people who have nothing to do with the modern world, and have banned men for very good reasons, don't seem likely to have as a champion the good fairy that Diana largely is in the film.

### One of Many Superhero Movies

I think it's also important to compare Whedon's story and WW interpretation to the portrayal of other superheroes in their films. What bothered me about some of the criticism of the script I've seen since the movie was released is that it seems cherry picked. For example, I saw a complaint about Diana being in chains and her captor being genderswitched to male. Yet this complaint disassociated that scene from its context, and also ignored how the very same things were done in other superhero films. I think there was a good reason why Whedon wanted her opponent to be male. He wanted a clear representation of patriarchy and its concerns at the center of the story. Unlike the film his movie was not about a war, it was about everyday life in the U.S. and the corruption of government by corporations -- a more complex (and controversial) topic. It was also one which takes Ares' being the god of war to a larger scope, showing how those urges and ideals create an ugly society even when it's at peace. In Whedon's script war is the foundation of the patriarchy, capitalism, and poverty.

In Whedon's script, Diana's capture and the removal of her powers was a way of making a god understand the helplessness and despair of the people around her (which is why Steve also calls her a tourist in a striking scene). I saw this as being no different than Odin making Thor mortal and casting him to earth where he learns both humility and to value the lives of "the ants" (as Loki put it) who were supposed to be under his protection. 

I find it to be problematic if we criticize the portrayal of any female hero as arrogant and unapproachable, as if she can't still be heroic or admirable. It's been pointed out to me that there are any number of male superheroes whose arrogance is considered to be part of their charm and an enduring part of their characterization. Some are humbled through their origin story experiences (like the recent Doctor Strange), but others keep those traits.

I look repeatedly to the case of Thor because there is so much similarity between the origins of his character and Diana. They are both aliens to Earth, have a mortal love interest with their own storyline, and their primary enemies are fellow gods whom they must protect humans against. When the first movie begins, Thor is an ass who is criticized by his own father as a "vain, greedy, cruel boy." (I'd have said warmongerer with no impulse control but, hey, his father knows him better...) In his origin movie he is cast to Earth as a mortal as both punishment and learning experience. He does learn to become a better person, though mostly because he feels the pain of being deprived of his favorite toy. Diana, by comparison, learns the helplessness and yet willingness to aid and sacrifice from humans with very little to their names. She willingly undergoes her trial to save the lives of those she has come to know. In both this and the next example, what she does is more selfless than that of her male counterparts.

Jenkins cited an homage to the 1978 Superman film when Steve and Diana confront muggers in an alley. In the Whedon script Diana allows herself to be de-powered (and chained) in order to save Steve's life and those of his friends. This is not unlike how Kal-el also allows his powers to be removed. He does so for selfish reasons however, so that he can live a human life with Lois in Superman II. In that film Kal-El soon regrets his decision because it's suggested that Lois loves him for his powers rather than himself. In Whedon's script Diana ends that act of the story with a moment that seemed drawn completely from the finale of Buffy S2. In that episode Buffy is about to be defeated and killed by Angel during a sword fight. When he asks her what she has left, she catches the sword and replies "Me." And then she defeats him.

This scene has largely been seen as a powerful moment, where Buffy shows she's not a hero because of all the trappings of a slayer, but because there is something fundamental within her that is a hero. In Diana's case there is a very clear motif in the script that reveals this underpinning of Whedon's story. His path for Diana was a Jesus allegory with her metaphorically dying for the sins of man and being reborn into her own identity. In the Jenkins film it is Steve who is the sacrificial figure, and his loss and her feelings for him lead Diana to unleash her previously unknown power.

Frankly, I found Whedon's take on this more empowering. In his script, Diana has always been a warrior, and we see no disagreement over her preparation as a warrior as we do in the Jenkins film. In order to win Steve his life and the right to return to his mission (the delivery of aid supplies to a refugee camp), Diana engages in a sword battle with her own mother. This also seems very tied to the Jesus allegory where she is seen interceding with her parent for the sake of humans, as well as an example of how her culture operates. She must take part in a rite of passage where she gets to make her own decisions by dint of besting her parent and their culture's leader. 

In her own moment of despair and fear, the image of Diana's mother appears to her to remind her of who she is and her inner strength. She is still the daughter of a god. Diana then breaks the chains that bind her and her powers are restored to her. Before, she wanted to see the world but wasn't a part of it. Now she has a commitment to it that is personal, and she understands her role.

### Playing it Safe

By comparison Jenkins' film never seems to trust that we will admire and connect with Diana's character or the plot without making a number of compromises that obscure major factors in her story. (Consider, for example, where [her bracelets came from](http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Bracelets_of_Submission)).

Religion, for example, is never brought up in that conversation in the boat when discussing the issue of marriage. This seemed more than a little unusual given that this is where these customs Steve speaks of spring from (and it would certainly have been cited by an American in the early 1900s). This omission seemed a particularly obvious effort to avoid controversy (especially given that this would be a global film). Bringing up any religion would automatically exclude others, while focusing on it would seem quite outdated in some parts of the world. This avoidance of the topic seems particularly ironic given that the entire movie is about a fight among gods. These gods, however, are as antiquated as Thor's, making it permissible to humanize them in whatever way the writer wants. Or, for that matter, to erase the majority of them.

I don't think the issue of religion is a side topic in considering how Whedon's script and the film contrast with one another. If one does not see religion or gods as beneficial beings, it's likely to produce a very different story than if one does. Whedon is famously atheistic and not endeared of religion. That's hardly a premise that would find much favor in a movie being sold to children in one of the most religious western countries today. Diana is revealed to be a god herself, and a weapon to destroy her brethren, at the end of Jenkins' film. But this knowledge has been hidden from her all her life -- perhaps because had she understood her purpose and origin she would have pursued her mission sooner? Ignorance as protection is a dangerous message to be sending but it's one that's used by many institutions today.

But it isn't just religion and persecution that the movie erases. It's also the difficulties of women finding support from those around them. I think Whedon's biggest failure in his script is that his Steve is nothing like the film's. Whedon's was cynical and stonewalling whereas the movie's was idealistic and desperate. Steve's depiction was, like much of his script, more realistic about many things. But it didn't make for as engaging a film.

I personally think that the movie's biggest fantasy was not a superpowered Amazon but a man like Steve, who was nothing like an American man of his time would have been (and isn't even much like a man of our time would be). In this he is a partner to Diana, who is equally softened as the ambassador from a warrior culture. The [myths about Amazons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazons) are tales of battles, and they are listed as daughters of Ares, whose temple is to him. This legend differs substantially from the tale told in the film where the Amazons were created by Zeus to help man, and then protected by him from the jealousy of his son. This backstory certainly makes them more servile and puts men's stories front and center.

Indeed female gods were entirely erased by this story, even though [earlier versions of Wonder Woman](http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Hera_\(New_Earth\)) cited them as the creators of both the Amazons, and Hera as the creator of Diana, specifically. Why was this changed? None of these characters appear in the film anyway other than in Hyppolita's story. Why was it so important that the women not be one another's creators?

Presumably because, despite having a woman as the central character, the movie was not seen to have enough men playing significant roles. She is thus [surrounded by them](http://thelearnedfangirl.com/2017/06/are-all-the-men-really-necessary-a-critical-look-at-wnder-woman/), and it is their stories we learn as the movie progresses. By comparison we learn nothing about any of Diana's peers at home, nor do we get any background for Etta. It would seem that Ares was a bit of a stand-in for certain moviegoers who might be jealous of losing attention from TPTB.

### Going Forward

Ultimately the movie provided a look at Diana that was much more family and male friendly than Diana's depiction in Whedon's script. And while Whedon's script proved to be a rather dry read, I rather miss getting to see a female superhero that does not see the need to ingratiate herself with men or the human world. But that was never going to happen in a big budget picture that was spoken of as a huge gamble for a decade. Right up to the opening weekend of the film, expectations were being downplayed and advertising and merchandising campaigns weren't on the same scale as for other superhero films. It seems unlikely that Diana will ever confront the realities of women and men in the modern world (or some other period film) when the realities of her own creation can't even be told in her origin story --whether it's being done by a female creator or not.


End file.
